Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 511

control, N = 251

treatment, N = 261

p-value2

age

51

51.12 ± 12.43 (25 - 74)

50.50 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)

51.71 ± 12.08 (32 - 72)

0.732

gender

51

0.322

f

34 (67%)

15 (60%)

19 (73%)

m

17 (33%)

10 (40%)

7 (27%)

occupation

51

0.975

day_training

1 (2.0%)

1 (4.0%)

0 (0%)

full_time

5 (9.8%)

3 (12%)

2 (7.7%)

homemaker

4 (7.8%)

2 (8.0%)

2 (7.7%)

other

2 (3.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (7.7%)

part_time

9 (18%)

5 (20%)

4 (15%)

retired

13 (25%)

6 (24%)

7 (27%)

self_employ

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

t_and_e

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

unemploy

13 (25%)

6 (24%)

7 (27%)

marital

51

>0.999

divore

5 (9.8%)

3 (12%)

2 (7.7%)

married

11 (22%)

5 (20%)

6 (23%)

none

29 (57%)

14 (56%)

15 (58%)

seperation

3 (5.9%)

2 (8.0%)

1 (3.8%)

widow

3 (5.9%)

1 (4.0%)

2 (7.7%)

edu

51

0.916

bachelor

14 (27%)

6 (24%)

8 (31%)

diploma

9 (18%)

6 (24%)

3 (12%)

hd_ad

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

postgraduate

4 (7.8%)

2 (8.0%)

2 (7.7%)

primary

4 (7.8%)

1 (4.0%)

3 (12%)

secondary_1_3

4 (7.8%)

2 (8.0%)

2 (7.7%)

secondary_4_5

13 (25%)

7 (28%)

6 (23%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.8%)

fam_income

51

0.673

10001_12000

3 (5.9%)

1 (4.0%)

2 (7.7%)

12001_14000

2 (3.9%)

2 (8.0%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

5 (9.8%)

2 (8.0%)

3 (12%)

16001_18000

2 (3.9%)

1 (4.0%)

1 (3.8%)

18001_20000

2 (3.9%)

2 (8.0%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (18%)

6 (24%)

3 (12%)

2001_4000

6 (12%)

3 (12%)

3 (12%)

4001_6000

7 (14%)

3 (12%)

4 (15%)

6001_8000

6 (12%)

3 (12%)

3 (12%)

8001_10000

4 (7.8%)

1 (4.0%)

3 (12%)

below_2000

5 (9.8%)

1 (4.0%)

4 (15%)

medication

51

42 (82%)

21 (84%)

21 (81%)

>0.999

onset_duration

51

15.90 ± 12.38 (0 - 56)

17.66 ± 13.98 (1 - 56)

14.21 ± 10.63 (0 - 35)

0.326

onset_age

51

35.22 ± 12.98 (15 - 62)

32.85 ± 11.65 (16 - 55)

37.50 ± 14.00 (15 - 62)

0.204

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 511

control, N = 251

treatment, N = 261

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

51

3.31 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.24 ± 1.33 (1 - 5)

3.38 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.682

recovery_stage_b

51

18.18 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)

18.28 ± 2.85 (9 - 23)

18.08 ± 2.59 (14 - 23)

0.791

ras_confidence

51

30.61 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)

30.32 ± 4.34 (19 - 40)

30.88 ± 5.23 (20 - 39)

0.677

ras_willingness

51

12.33 ± 1.93 (7 - 15)

12.36 ± 1.70 (9 - 15)

12.31 ± 2.15 (7 - 15)

0.924

ras_goal

51

17.71 ± 2.87 (12 - 24)

17.64 ± 2.86 (12 - 23)

17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

0.874

ras_reliance

51

13.39 ± 3.03 (8 - 20)

13.20 ± 2.80 (8 - 18)

13.58 ± 3.28 (8 - 20)

0.661

ras_domination

51

10.06 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

10.72 ± 1.86 (7 - 15)

9.42 ± 2.59 (3 - 14)

0.046

symptom

51

29.88 ± 9.83 (14 - 56)

29.12 ± 8.69 (14 - 45)

30.62 ± 10.93 (15 - 56)

0.592

slof_work

51

22.71 ± 4.74 (10 - 30)

23.04 ± 4.53 (15 - 30)

22.38 ± 5.00 (10 - 30)

0.627

slof_relationship

51

25.90 ± 5.87 (11 - 35)

25.88 ± 6.35 (13 - 35)

25.92 ± 5.51 (11 - 35)

0.979

satisfaction

51

20.67 ± 6.76 (5 - 30)

19.32 ± 6.41 (5 - 29)

21.96 ± 6.95 (5 - 30)

0.165

mhc_emotional

51

11.33 ± 3.63 (4 - 18)

10.96 ± 3.10 (6 - 17)

11.69 ± 4.10 (4 - 18)

0.476

mhc_social

51

14.84 ± 5.02 (6 - 26)

15.12 ± 5.03 (7 - 26)

14.58 ± 5.10 (6 - 23)

0.704

mhc_psychological

51

22.10 ± 6.17 (6 - 36)

21.72 ± 5.98 (10 - 33)

22.46 ± 6.45 (6 - 36)

0.673

resilisnce

51

16.92 ± 4.68 (6 - 25)

16.68 ± 4.67 (6 - 24)

17.15 ± 4.76 (7 - 25)

0.721

social_provision

51

13.65 ± 3.18 (5 - 20)

13.40 ± 2.89 (8 - 20)

13.88 ± 3.48 (5 - 19)

0.592

els_value_living

51

17.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 23)

16.88 ± 2.49 (12 - 22)

17.50 ± 3.49 (5 - 23)

0.470

els_life_fulfill

51

13.00 ± 3.34 (4 - 18)

12.08 ± 3.28 (5 - 17)

13.88 ± 3.22 (4 - 18)

0.053

els

51

30.20 ± 5.66 (9 - 40)

28.96 ± 4.70 (20 - 36)

31.38 ± 6.31 (9 - 40)

0.127

social_connect

51

26.78 ± 9.72 (8 - 48)

26.96 ± 8.59 (8 - 45)

26.62 ± 10.87 (8 - 48)

0.901

shs_agency

51

14.22 ± 4.74 (3 - 20)

13.60 ± 4.51 (3 - 20)

14.81 ± 4.97 (3 - 20)

0.369

shs_pathway

51

16.57 ± 3.84 (4 - 22)

15.96 ± 3.65 (8 - 22)

17.15 ± 4.01 (4 - 22)

0.272

shs

51

30.78 ± 8.00 (7 - 42)

29.56 ± 7.75 (14 - 41)

31.96 ± 8.20 (7 - 42)

0.288

esteem

51

12.53 ± 1.25 (10 - 15)

12.64 ± 1.19 (10 - 14)

12.42 ± 1.33 (10 - 15)

0.542

mlq_search

51

15.25 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)

15.12 ± 3.24 (6 - 21)

15.38 ± 3.41 (3 - 20)

0.778

mlq_presence

51

13.84 ± 4.03 (3 - 21)

14.16 ± 3.16 (6 - 20)

13.54 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

0.587

mlq

51

29.10 ± 6.72 (6 - 41)

29.28 ± 6.19 (12 - 40)

28.92 ± 7.32 (6 - 41)

0.852

empower

51

19.86 ± 4.31 (6 - 28)

19.76 ± 3.87 (11 - 24)

19.96 ± 4.77 (6 - 28)

0.869

ismi_resistance

51

14.80 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

14.84 ± 2.29 (12 - 19)

14.77 ± 3.28 (5 - 20)

0.929

ismi_discrimation

51

11.29 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

12.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 18)

10.42 ± 3.15 (5 - 19)

0.046

sss_affective

51

9.78 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

9.23 ± 4.62 (3 - 18)

0.337

sss_behavior

51

9.57 ± 4.29 (3 - 18)

10.28 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)

8.88 ± 4.27 (3 - 18)

0.250

sss_cognitive

51

8.14 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

8.20 ± 4.19 (3 - 18)

8.08 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

0.917

sss

51

27.49 ± 11.69 (9 - 54)

28.84 ± 10.74 (9 - 54)

26.19 ± 12.61 (9 - 54)

0.424

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.24

0.235

2.78, 3.70

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.145

0.329

-0.500, 0.789

0.662

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.800

0.397

0.022, 1.58

0.056

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.385

0.548

-1.46, 0.690

0.490

Pseudo R square

0.055

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.3

0.551

17.2, 19.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.203

0.771

-1.72, 1.31

0.793

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.550

0.754

-0.927, 2.03

0.472

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.011

1.041

-2.05, 2.03

0.992

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.3

1.021

28.3, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.565

1.430

-2.24, 3.37

0.695

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.73

1.299

-0.814, 4.28

0.195

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.80

1.792

-5.31, 1.71

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.4

0.383

11.6, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.052

0.536

-1.10, 0.999

0.923

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.604

0.489

-1.56, 0.355

0.230

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.899

0.675

-0.425, 2.22

0.196

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.613

16.4, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.129

0.859

-1.55, 1.81

0.881

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.435

0.817

-2.04, 1.17

0.599

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.827

1.127

-1.38, 3.04

0.470

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.592

12.0, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.377

0.829

-1.25, 2.00

0.651

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.031

0.532

-1.07, 1.01

0.955

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.48

0.734

0.041, 2.92

0.058

Pseudo R square

0.041

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.7

0.451

9.84, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.30

0.632

-2.54, -0.058

0.044

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.408

0.757

-1.89, 1.08

0.594

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.67

1.046

-0.376, 3.73

0.119

Pseudo R square

0.066

symptom

(Intercept)

29.1

2.002

25.2, 33.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.50

2.803

-4.00, 6.99

0.596

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.25

1.555

-4.30, 1.80

0.432

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.50

2.144

-5.71, 2.70

0.492

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.0

0.957

21.2, 24.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.655

1.341

-3.28, 1.97

0.627

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.447

0.960

-2.33, 1.43

0.647

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.319

1.324

-2.91, 2.28

0.812

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.9

1.187

23.6, 28.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.043

1.662

-3.21, 3.30

0.979

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.25

1.142

-3.48, 0.992

0.288

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.18

1.575

-1.91, 4.26

0.464

Pseudo R square

0.005

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.3

1.378

16.6, 22.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.64

1.930

-1.14, 6.42

0.176

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.44

1.838

-0.166, 7.04

0.074

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.88

2.536

-7.85, 2.09

0.267

Pseudo R square

0.042

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.0

0.738

9.51, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.732

1.034

-1.29, 2.76

0.482

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.20

0.814

-0.395, 2.79

0.155

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.68

1.122

-3.88, 0.515

0.148

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

1.085

13.0, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.543

1.519

-3.52, 2.43

0.722

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.70

1.348

-0.944, 4.34

0.220

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.07

1.860

-4.71, 2.58

0.571

Pseudo R square

0.016

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.7

1.317

19.1, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.742

1.844

-2.87, 4.36

0.689

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.97

1.588

-1.14, 5.08

0.227

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.90

2.190

-7.20, 1.39

0.198

Pseudo R square

0.011

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.7

0.903

14.9, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.474

1.265

-2.01, 2.95

0.709

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.727

1.118

-1.46, 2.92

0.523

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.450

1.542

-2.57, 3.47

0.773

Pseudo R square

0.014

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.621

12.2, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.485

0.869

-1.22, 2.19

0.579

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.433

0.703

-1.81, 0.946

0.545

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.49

0.970

-0.416, 3.39

0.140

Pseudo R square

0.034

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.601

15.7, 18.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.620

0.841

-1.03, 2.27

0.464

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.04

0.700

-0.332, 2.41

0.151

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.366

0.966

-2.26, 1.53

0.708

Pseudo R square

0.024

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.1

0.638

10.8, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.80

0.894

0.052, 3.56

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.85

0.741

0.399, 3.30

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.17

1.022

-3.17, 0.836

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.085

els

(Intercept)

29.0

1.114

26.8, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.42

1.560

-0.633, 5.48

0.126

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.86

1.238

0.433, 5.29

0.030

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.51

1.708

-4.85, 1.84

0.387

Pseudo R square

0.062

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

1.900

23.2, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.345

2.661

-5.56, 4.87

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.21

1.505

-1.74, 4.17

0.430

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.654

2.076

-3.41, 4.72

0.756

Pseudo R square

0.006

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.6

0.936

11.8, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.21

1.310

-1.36, 3.78

0.361

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.52

0.978

-0.399, 3.43

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.560

1.349

-2.08, 3.20

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.050

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.736

14.5, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.19

1.031

-0.827, 3.21

0.252

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

0.753

-0.399, 2.55

0.168

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.146

1.038

-2.18, 1.89

0.889

Pseudo R square

0.039

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.553

26.5, 32.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.40

2.175

-1.86, 6.66

0.275

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.50

1.480

-0.401, 5.40

0.107

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.494

2.041

-3.51, 4.49

0.811

Pseudo R square

0.051

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.243

12.2, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.217

0.340

-0.884, 0.450

0.526

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.789

0.456

-0.106, 1.68

0.099

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.264

0.631

-1.50, 0.974

0.681

Pseudo R square

0.068

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.1

0.658

13.8, 16.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.265

0.921

-1.54, 2.07

0.775

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.968

1.044

-1.08, 3.01

0.362

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

1.442

-3.91, 1.75

0.460

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.2

0.784

12.6, 15.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.622

1.098

-2.77, 1.53

0.574

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.21

1.025

-0.796, 3.22

0.248

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.273

1.415

-3.05, 2.50

0.849

Pseudo R square

0.022

mlq

(Intercept)

29.3

1.334

26.7, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.357

1.868

-4.02, 3.30

0.849

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.14

1.874

-1.53, 5.82

0.264

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.32

2.587

-6.39, 3.75

0.613

Pseudo R square

0.014

empower

(Intercept)

19.8

0.841

18.1, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.202

1.178

-2.11, 2.51

0.865

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.702

0.618

-0.509, 1.91

0.270

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.268

0.852

-1.94, 1.40

0.756

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.8

0.532

13.8, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.071

0.745

-1.53, 1.39

0.925

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.807

0.818

-0.797, 2.41

0.333

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.487

1.130

-2.70, 1.73

0.670

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.627

11.0, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.78

0.878

-3.50, -0.057

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.66

0.757

-3.15, -0.180

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.04

1.044

-0.004, 4.09

0.062

Pseudo R square

0.063

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.818

8.76, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.13

1.146

-3.37, 1.12

0.329

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.598

0.571

-1.72, 0.520

0.308

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.305

0.787

-1.24, 1.85

0.703

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

0.831

8.65, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.40

1.164

-3.68, 0.887

0.236

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.55

0.686

-2.89, -0.204

0.036

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.51

0.946

-0.342, 3.37

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.027

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.20

0.847

6.54, 9.86

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.123

1.187

-2.45, 2.20

0.918

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.757

0.750

-0.712, 2.23

0.325

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

1.034

-3.11, 0.943

0.308

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss

(Intercept)

28.8

2.324

24.3, 33.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.65

3.255

-9.03, 3.73

0.420

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.27

1.523

-4.26, 1.71

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.656

2.100

-3.46, 4.77

0.758

Pseudo R square

0.013

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.24 (95% CI [2.78, 3.70], t(64) = 13.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.79], t(64) = 0.44, p = 0.660; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.02, 1.58], t(64) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.02, 1.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.69], t(64) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.28 (95% CI [17.20, 19.36], t(64) = 33.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.31], t(64) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.03], t(64) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.73])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.03], t(64) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -3.89e-03, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.32 (95% CI [28.32, 32.32], t(64) = 29.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.24, 3.37], t(64) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.73, 95% CI [-0.81, 4.28], t(64) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-5.31, 1.71], t(64) = -1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.61, 13.11], t(64) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.00], t(64) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.36], t(64) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.22], t(64) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.44, 18.84], t(64) = 28.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.81], t(64) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.17], t(64) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.38, 3.04], t(64) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.98])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.04, 14.36], t(64) = 22.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.00], t(64) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.01], t(64) = -0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [0.04, 2.92], t(64) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.01, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.72 (95% CI [9.84, 11.60], t(64) = 23.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.54, -0.06], t(64) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.10, -0.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.08], t(64) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.38, 3.73], t(64) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [25.20, 33.04], t(64) = 14.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-4.00, 6.99], t(64) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-4.30, 1.80], t(64) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-5.71, 2.70], t(64) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.04 (95% CI [21.16, 24.92], t(64) = 24.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-3.28, 1.97], t(64) = -0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.43], t(64) = -0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.91, 2.28], t(64) = -0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.88 (95% CI [23.55, 28.21], t(64) = 21.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.30], t(64) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 7.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.99], t(64) = -1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-1.91, 4.26], t(64) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [16.62, 22.02], t(64) = 14.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.64, 95% CI [-1.14, 6.42], t(64) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.44, 95% CI [-0.17, 7.04], t(64) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.99])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.88, 95% CI [-7.85, 2.09], t(64) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.96 (95% CI [9.51, 12.41], t(64) = 14.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.76], t(64) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.79], t(64) = 1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.68, 95% CI [-3.88, 0.51], t(64) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [12.99, 17.25], t(64) = 13.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.52, 2.43], t(64) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.94, 4.34], t(64) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.79])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-4.71, 2.58], t(64) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.72 (95% CI [19.14, 24.30], t(64) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.87, 4.36], t(64) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.97, 95% CI [-1.14, 5.08], t(64) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.90, 95% CI [-7.20, 1.39], t(64) = -1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [14.91, 18.45], t(64) = 18.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.95], t(64) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.92], t(64) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.66])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.57, 3.47], t(64) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.18, 14.62], t(64) = 21.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.19], t(64) = 0.56, p = 0.577; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.95], t(64) = -0.62, p = 0.539; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.39], t(64) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [15.70, 18.06], t(64) = 28.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.27], t(64) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.41], t(64) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.53], t(64) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.08 (95% CI [10.83, 13.33], t(64) = 18.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [0.05, 3.56], t(64) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.02, 1.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.40, 3.30], t(64) = 2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.12, 0.99])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.17, 0.84], t(64) = -1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [26.78, 31.14], t(64) = 26.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.63, 5.48], t(64) = 1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.93])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [0.43, 5.29], t(64) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-4.85, 1.84], t(64) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.24, 30.68], t(64) = 14.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-5.56, 4.87], t(64) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.74, 4.17], t(64) = 0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-3.41, 4.72], t(64) = 0.32, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.60 (95% CI [11.77, 15.43], t(64) = 14.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.36, 3.78], t(64) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.40, 3.43], t(64) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.20], t(64) = 0.41, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.52, 17.40], t(64) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 3.21], t(64) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.55], t(64) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.89], t(64) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [26.52, 32.60], t(64) = 19.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.40, 95% CI [-1.86, 6.66], t(64) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.50, 95% CI [-0.40, 5.40], t(64) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.67])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-3.51, 4.49], t(64) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.17) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.64 (95% CI [12.16, 13.12], t(64) = 52.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.45], t(64) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.68], t(64) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.97], t(64) = -0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.83, 16.41], t(64) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.07], t(64) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.01], t(64) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.93])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-3.91, 1.75], t(64) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.16 (95% CI [12.62, 15.70], t(64) = 18.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.53], t(64) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.80, 3.22], t(64) = 1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.82])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.05, 2.50], t(64) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.28 (95% CI [26.67, 31.89], t(64) = 21.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-4.02, 3.30], t(64) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.14, 95% CI [-1.53, 5.82], t(64) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.88])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-6.39, 3.75], t(64) = -0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.76 (95% CI [18.11, 21.41], t(64) = 23.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.51], t(64) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.91], t(64) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.40], t(64) = -0.32, p = 0.753; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.80, 15.88], t(64) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.39], t(64) = -0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.41], t(64) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.73], t(64) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [10.97, 13.43], t(64) = 19.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-3.50, -0.06], t(64) = -2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.15, -0.18], t(64) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.04, 95% CI [-3.50e-03, 4.09], t(64) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.06e-03, 1.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.36 (95% CI [8.76, 11.96], t(64) = 12.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.37, 1.12], t(64) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.52], t(64) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.85], t(64) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.28 (95% CI [8.65, 11.91], t(64) = 12.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-3.68, 0.89], t(64) = -1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.89, -0.20], t(64) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.37], t(64) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.20 (95% CI [6.54, 9.86], t(64) = 9.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.45, 2.20], t(64) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.23], t(64) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.94], t(64) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [24.29, 33.39], t(64) = 12.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.65, 95% CI [-9.03, 3.73], t(64) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.26, 1.71], t(64) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-3.46, 4.77], t(64) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

225.649

232.394

-109.824

219.649

recovery_stage_a

random

6

226.425

239.916

-107.212

214.425

5.224

3

0.156

recovery_stage_b

null

3

334.545

341.290

-164.272

328.545

recovery_stage_b

random

6

339.312

352.803

-163.656

327.312

1.232

3

0.745

ras_confidence

null

3

419.125

425.871

-206.563

413.125

ras_confidence

random

6

423.231

436.722

-205.615

411.231

1.894

3

0.595

ras_willingness

null

3

282.145

288.891

-138.073

276.145

ras_willingness

random

6

286.070

299.561

-137.035

274.070

2.075

3

0.557

ras_goal

null

3

348.086

354.831

-171.043

342.086

ras_goal

random

6

353.375

366.866

-170.688

341.375

0.710

3

0.871

ras_reliance

null

3

336.813

343.558

-165.406

330.813

ras_reliance

random

6

334.367

347.858

-161.183

322.367

8.446

3

0.038

ras_domination

null

3

317.626

324.371

-155.813

311.626

ras_domination

random

6

317.763

331.254

-152.882

305.763

5.862

3

0.119

symptom

null

3

497.814

504.560

-245.907

491.814

symptom

random

6

499.557

513.048

-243.778

487.557

4.258

3

0.235

slof_work

null

3

400.984

407.729

-197.492

394.984

slof_work

random

6

405.680

419.171

-196.840

393.680

1.304

3

0.728

slof_relationship

null

3

429.548

436.293

-211.774

423.548

slof_relationship

random

6

434.275

447.766

-211.137

422.275

1.273

3

0.736

satisfaction

null

3

465.754

472.499

-229.877

459.754

satisfaction

random

6

466.794

480.285

-227.397

454.794

4.960

3

0.175

mhc_emotional

null

3

369.518

376.263

-181.759

363.518

mhc_emotional

random

6

372.693

386.184

-180.347

360.693

2.825

3

0.419

mhc_social

null

3

427.050

433.796

-210.525

421.050

mhc_social

random

6

430.860

444.351

-209.430

418.860

2.190

3

0.534

mhc_psychological

null

3

452.990

459.736

-223.495

446.990

mhc_psychological

random

6

456.955

470.446

-222.477

444.955

2.036

3

0.565

resilisnce

null

3

401.031

407.777

-197.516

395.031

resilisnce

random

6

405.055

418.546

-196.528

393.055

1.976

3

0.577

social_provision

null

3

347.235

353.981

-170.618

341.235

social_provision

random

6

349.420

362.911

-168.710

337.420

3.815

3

0.282

els_value_living

null

3

343.667

350.413

-168.834

337.667

els_value_living

random

6

345.855

359.346

-166.927

333.855

3.813

3

0.282

els_life_fulfill

null

3

358.517

365.262

-176.258

352.517

els_life_fulfill

random

6

354.244

367.735

-171.122

342.244

10.273

3

0.016

els

null

3

433.166

439.911

-213.583

427.166

els

random

6

430.629

444.120

-209.315

418.629

8.536

3

0.036

social_connect

null

3

489.432

496.177

-241.716

483.432

social_connect

random

6

492.985

506.476

-240.492

480.985

2.447

3

0.485

shs_agency

null

3

406.226

412.972

-200.113

400.226

shs_agency

random

6

404.000

417.491

-196.000

392.000

8.226

3

0.042

shs_pathway

null

3

368.848

375.593

-181.424

362.848

shs_pathway

random

6

369.617

383.108

-178.809

357.617

5.230

3

0.156

shs

null

3

474.178

480.924

-234.089

468.178

shs

random

6

471.579

485.070

-229.790

459.579

8.599

3

0.035

esteem

null

3

232.834

239.579

-113.417

226.834

esteem

random

6

233.562

247.053

-110.781

221.562

5.272

3

0.153

mlq_search

null

3

363.857

370.602

-178.928

357.857

mlq_search

random

6

368.939

382.429

-178.469

356.939

0.918

3

0.821

mlq_presence

null

3

384.004

390.750

-189.002

378.004

mlq_presence

random

6

387.169

400.660

-187.585

375.169

2.835

3

0.418

mlq

null

3

459.718

466.463

-226.859

453.718

mlq

random

6

463.986

477.477

-225.993

451.986

1.732

3

0.630

empower

null

3

372.100

378.846

-183.050

366.100

empower

random

6

376.128

389.619

-182.064

364.128

1.972

3

0.578

ismi_resistance

null

3

333.465

340.210

-163.732

327.465

ismi_resistance

random

6

338.209

351.700

-163.105

326.209

1.256

3

0.740

ismi_discrimation

null

3

354.748

361.493

-174.374

348.748

ismi_discrimation

random

6

353.040

366.531

-170.520

341.040

7.707

3

0.052

sss_affective

null

3

366.693

373.438

-180.346

360.693

sss_affective

random

6

370.285

383.776

-179.142

358.285

2.408

3

0.492

sss_behavior

null

3

378.757

385.502

-186.378

372.757

sss_behavior

random

6

378.798

392.289

-183.399

366.798

5.959

3

0.114

sss_cognitive

null

3

379.428

386.174

-186.714

373.428

sss_cognitive

random

6

384.039

397.530

-186.020

372.039

1.389

3

0.708

sss

null

3

509.720

516.466

-251.860

503.720

sss

random

6

514.134

527.625

-251.067

502.134

1.586

3

0.663

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

25

3.24 ± 1.17

26

3.38 ± 1.17

0.661

-0.153

recovery_stage_a

2nd

9

4.04 ± 1.16

-0.845

10

3.80 ± 1.16

-0.439

0.654

0.254

recovery_stage_b

1st

25

18.28 ± 2.75

26

18.08 ± 2.75

0.793

0.119

recovery_stage_b

2nd

9

18.83 ± 2.44

-0.322

10

18.62 ± 2.45

-0.316

0.850

0.125

ras_confidence

1st

25

30.32 ± 5.11

26

30.88 ± 5.11

0.695

-0.194

ras_confidence

2nd

9

32.05 ± 4.35

-0.595

10

30.81 ± 4.38

0.024

0.540

0.425

ras_willingness

1st

25

12.36 ± 1.91

26

12.31 ± 1.91

0.923

0.048

ras_willingness

2nd

9

11.76 ± 1.64

0.550

10

12.60 ± 1.65

-0.268

0.267

-0.771

ras_goal

1st

25

17.64 ± 3.06

26

17.77 ± 3.06

0.881

-0.070

ras_goal

2nd

9

17.21 ± 2.67

0.236

10

18.16 ± 2.69

-0.213

0.441

-0.519

ras_reliance

1st

25

13.20 ± 2.96

26

13.58 ± 2.96

0.651

-0.325

ras_reliance

2nd

9

13.17 ± 2.19

0.026

10

15.03 ± 2.22

-1.252

0.071

-1.604

ras_domination

1st

25

10.72 ± 2.26

26

9.42 ± 2.26

0.044

0.720

ras_domination

2nd

9

10.31 ± 2.22

0.226

10

10.69 ± 2.22

-0.704

0.712

-0.210

symptom

1st

25

29.12 ± 10.01

26

30.62 ± 10.01

0.596

-0.445

symptom

2nd

9

27.87 ± 7.07

0.372

10

27.86 ± 7.20

0.820

0.998

0.003

slof_work

1st

25

23.04 ± 4.79

26

22.38 ± 4.79

0.627

0.312

slof_work

2nd

9

22.59 ± 3.68

0.212

10

21.62 ± 3.73

0.364

0.569

0.464

slof_relationship

1st

25

25.88 ± 5.93

26

25.92 ± 5.93

0.979

-0.017

slof_relationship

2nd

9

24.63 ± 4.49

0.500

10

25.85 ± 4.55

0.028

0.559

-0.489

satisfaction

1st

25

19.32 ± 6.89

26

21.96 ± 6.89

0.176

-0.637

satisfaction

2nd

9

22.76 ± 6.01

-0.829

10

22.52 ± 6.05

-0.134

0.932

0.057

mhc_emotional

1st

25

10.96 ± 3.69

26

11.69 ± 3.69

0.482

-0.408

mhc_emotional

2nd

9

12.16 ± 2.95

-0.668

10

11.21 ± 2.98

0.270

0.487

0.531

mhc_social

1st

25

15.12 ± 5.42

26

14.58 ± 5.42

0.722

0.180

mhc_social

2nd

9

16.82 ± 4.57

-0.564

10

15.21 ± 4.61

-0.209

0.448

0.535

mhc_psychological

1st

25

21.72 ± 6.58

26

22.46 ± 6.58

0.689

-0.210

mhc_psychological

2nd

9

23.69 ± 5.47

-0.558

10

21.53 ± 5.52

0.263

0.395

0.611

resilisnce

1st

25

16.68 ± 4.52

26

17.15 ± 4.52

0.709

-0.190

resilisnce

2nd

9

17.41 ± 3.80

-0.291

10

18.33 ± 3.83

-0.472

0.600

-0.370

social_provision

1st

25

13.40 ± 3.10

26

13.88 ± 3.10

0.579

-0.311

social_provision

2nd

9

12.97 ± 2.51

0.278

10

14.94 ± 2.53

-0.677

0.094

-1.267

els_value_living

1st

25

16.88 ± 3.00

26

17.50 ± 3.00

0.464

-0.399

els_value_living

2nd

9

17.92 ± 2.46

-0.670

10

18.17 ± 2.48

-0.434

0.824

-0.163

els_life_fulfill

1st

25

12.08 ± 3.19

26

13.88 ± 3.19

0.049

-1.098

els_life_fulfill

2nd

9

13.93 ± 2.61

-1.127

10

14.57 ± 2.63

-0.416

0.599

-0.387

els

1st

25

28.96 ± 5.57

26

31.38 ± 5.57

0.126

-0.887

els

2nd

9

31.82 ± 4.46

-1.046

10

32.74 ± 4.51

-0.495

0.658

-0.335

social_connect

1st

25

26.96 ± 9.50

26

26.62 ± 9.50

0.897

0.106

social_connect

2nd

9

28.17 ± 6.74

-0.373

10

28.48 ± 6.87

-0.574

0.921

-0.095

shs_agency

1st

25

13.60 ± 4.68

26

14.81 ± 4.68

0.361

-0.562

shs_agency

2nd

9

15.12 ± 3.65

-0.706

10

16.88 ± 3.70

-0.967

0.299

-0.823

shs_pathway

1st

25

15.96 ± 3.68

26

17.15 ± 3.68

0.252

-0.723

shs_pathway

2nd

9

17.04 ± 2.85

-0.652

10

18.08 ± 2.89

-0.563

0.429

-0.635

shs

1st

25

29.56 ± 7.77

26

31.96 ± 7.77

0.275

-0.744

shs

2nd

9

32.06 ± 5.85

-0.774

10

34.95 ± 5.94

-0.927

0.289

-0.897

esteem

1st

25

12.64 ± 1.22

26

12.42 ± 1.22

0.526

0.190

esteem

2nd

9

13.43 ± 1.25

-0.690

10

12.95 ± 1.25

-0.459

0.407

0.420

mlq_search

1st

25

15.12 ± 3.29

26

15.38 ± 3.29

0.775

-0.108

mlq_search

2nd

9

16.09 ± 3.15

-0.396

10

15.27 ± 3.15

0.046

0.575

0.334

mlq_presence

1st

25

14.16 ± 3.92

26

13.54 ± 3.92

0.574

0.270

mlq_presence

2nd

9

15.37 ± 3.39

-0.526

10

14.48 ± 3.41

-0.408

0.569

0.388

mlq

1st

25

29.28 ± 6.67

26

28.92 ± 6.67

0.849

0.084

mlq

2nd

9

31.42 ± 5.98

-0.503

10

29.74 ± 6.01

-0.192

0.544

0.394

empower

1st

25

19.76 ± 4.21

26

19.96 ± 4.21

0.865

-0.151

empower

2nd

9

20.46 ± 2.93

-0.527

10

20.40 ± 2.99

-0.326

0.961

0.050

ismi_resistance

1st

25

14.84 ± 2.66

26

14.77 ± 2.66

0.925

0.037

ismi_resistance

2nd

9

15.65 ± 2.50

-0.425

10

15.09 ± 2.51

-0.168

0.629

0.294

ismi_discrimation

1st

25

12.20 ± 3.13

26

10.42 ± 3.13

0.048

1.054

ismi_discrimation

2nd

9

10.54 ± 2.61

0.987

10

10.80 ± 2.63

-0.226

0.825

-0.158

sss_affective

1st

25

10.36 ± 4.09

26

9.23 ± 4.09

0.329

0.919

sss_affective

2nd

9

9.76 ± 2.81

0.487

10

8.94 ± 2.87

0.239

0.530

0.671

sss_behavior

1st

25

10.28 ± 4.16

26

8.88 ± 4.16

0.236

0.939

sss_behavior

2nd

9

8.73 ± 2.99

1.042

10

8.85 ± 3.04

0.024

0.933

-0.079

sss_cognitive

1st

25

8.20 ± 4.24

26

8.08 ± 4.24

0.918

0.076

sss_cognitive

2nd

9

8.96 ± 3.11

-0.465

10

7.75 ± 3.16

0.200

0.406

0.740

sss

1st

25

28.84 ± 11.62

26

26.19 ± 11.62

0.420

0.809

sss

2nd

9

27.57 ± 7.87

0.389

10

25.57 ± 8.05

0.189

0.588

0.608

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(62.29) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.80)

2st

t(59.80) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.83)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(56.66) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.34)

2st

t(56.84) = -0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.46 to 2.03)

ras_confidence

1st

t(55.35) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.43)

2st

t(57.78) = -0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.25 to 2.78)

ras_willingness

1st

t(55.44) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.02)

2st

t(57.69) = 1.12, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.36)

ras_goal

1st

t(56.16) = 0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.85)

2st

t(57.10) = 0.78, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.51 to 3.42)

ras_reliance

1st

t(51.80) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.04)

2st

t(64.83) = 1.84, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -1.60, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.88)

ras_domination

1st

t(62.03) = -2.05, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-2.56 to -0.03)

2st

t(59.48) = 0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.42)

symptom

1st

t(51.02) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-4.13 to 7.12)

2st

t(65.99) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-6.55 to 6.53)

slof_work

1st

t(52.59) = -0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.34 to 2.03)

2st

t(62.90) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.37 to 2.42)

slof_relationship

1st

t(52.26) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-3.29 to 3.38)

2st

t(63.72) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.93 to 5.37)

satisfaction

1st

t(56.17) = 1.37, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.22 to 6.51)

2st

t(57.09) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.79 to 5.31)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(53.48) = 0.71, p = 0.482, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.81)

2st

t(60.78) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-3.67 to 1.77)

mhc_social

1st

t(55.00) = -0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.59 to 2.50)

2st

t(58.18) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-5.83 to 2.61)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(54.57) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.96 to 4.44)

2st

t(58.78) = -0.86, p = 0.395, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-7.21 to 2.89)

resilisnce

1st

t(54.94) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.01)

2st

t(58.26) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.58 to 4.43)

social_provision

1st

t(53.79) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.23)

2st

t(60.14) = 1.70, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.29)

els_value_living

1st

t(54.12) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.31)

2st

t(59.51) = 0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.52)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(54.08) = 2.02, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.60)

2st

t(59.60) = 0.53, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.04)

els

1st

t(53.57) = 1.55, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.70 to 5.55)

2st

t(60.59) = 0.45, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-3.20 to 5.04)

social_connect

1st

t(51.11) = -0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-5.69 to 5.00)

2st

t(65.94) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-5.93 to 6.55)

shs_agency

1st

t(52.95) = 0.92, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.42 to 3.84)

2st

t(61.99) = 1.05, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-1.61 to 5.14)

shs_pathway

1st

t(52.75) = 1.16, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.87 to 3.26)

2st

t(62.48) = 0.80, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.68)

shs

1st

t(52.19) = 1.10, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.96 to 6.77)

2st

t(63.90) = 1.07, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-2.51 to 8.30)

esteem

1st

t(65.56) = -0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.46)

2st

t(65.12) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.67)

mlq_search

1st

t(60.29) = 0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.11)

2st

t(57.73) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.71 to 2.08)

mlq_presence

1st

t(55.82) = -0.57, p = 0.574, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.82 to 1.58)

2st

t(57.35) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.02 to 2.23)

mlq

1st

t(57.20) = -0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-4.10 to 3.38)

2st

t(56.68) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-7.19 to 3.83)

empower

1st

t(50.79) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.57)

2st

t(65.94) = -0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.78 to 2.64)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(59.40) = -0.10, p = 0.925, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.42)

2st

t(57.13) = -0.49, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.75)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(54.59) = -2.02, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-3.54 to -0.02)

2st

t(58.74) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.67)

sss_affective

1st

t(50.60) = -0.99, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.17)

2st

t(65.69) = -0.63, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.78)

sss_behavior

1st

t(51.31) = -1.20, p = 0.236, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.73 to 0.94)

2st

t(65.74) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.65 to 2.88)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(51.70) = -0.10, p = 0.918, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.26)

2st

t(65.06) = -0.84, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.08 to 1.67)

sss

1st

t(50.40) = -0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-9.18 to 3.89)

2st

t(65.16) = -0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-9.29 to 5.31)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(29.09) = 1.07, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.21)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(22.62) = 0.74, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.05)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(21.49) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.67 to 2.53)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(21.56) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.28)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(22.17) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.03)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(18.82) = 2.85, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.52)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(28.70) = 1.71, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.78)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(18.29) = -1.86, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-5.87 to 0.36)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(19.37) = -0.83, p = 0.831, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.16)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(19.14) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.36 to 2.22)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(22.18) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.24)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(20.02) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.15)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(21.20) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.07 to 3.33)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(20.86) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.11 to 2.25)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(21.15) = 1.09, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.42)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(20.26) = 1.56, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.46)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(20.51) = 1.00, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.08)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(20.47) = 0.96, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.17)

els

1st vs 2st

t(20.09) = 1.14, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.13 to 3.83)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(18.35) = 1.30, p = 0.419, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.15 to 4.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(19.64) = 2.21, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.12 to 4.04)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(19.49) = 1.29, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.44)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(19.09) = 2.11, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.03 to 5.96)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(36.98) = 1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.43)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(26.36) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.98)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(21.88) = 0.95, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.99)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(23.10) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.94 to 4.57)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(18.14) = 0.74, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.67)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(25.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.96)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(20.88) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.90)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(18.02) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.85)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(18.49) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.34)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(18.75) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.18)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(17.89) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.43)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(29.76) = 1.96, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.63)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(22.89) = 0.72, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.14)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(21.70) = 1.31, p = 0.406, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.47)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(21.78) = -1.21, p = 0.475, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.43)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(22.42) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.16 to 1.29)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(18.90) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.09)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(29.35) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.18)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(18.35) = -0.80, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.53 to 2.03)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(19.48) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.47 to 1.58)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(19.24) = -1.08, p = 0.586, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-3.66 to 1.16)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(22.43) = 1.84, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.44 to 7.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(20.16) = 1.46, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(21.40) = 1.24, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.14 to 4.54)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(21.03) = 1.22, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.38 to 5.32)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(21.35) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.08)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(20.40) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.92 to 1.05)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(20.67) = 1.47, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.52)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(20.63) = 2.47, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.41)

els

1st vs 2st

t(20.23) = 2.28, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.25 to 5.47)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(18.41) = 0.80, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.96 to 4.39)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(19.75) = 1.54, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.58)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(19.60) = 1.42, p = 0.345, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.66)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(19.18) = 1.67, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.62)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(38.19) = 1.68, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.74)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(26.86) = 0.91, p = 0.747, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.16)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(22.11) = 1.16, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.37)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(23.40) = 1.12, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.80 to 6.09)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(18.19) = 1.13, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.01)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(25.77) = 0.96, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.53)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(21.06) = -2.17, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-3.26 to -0.07)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(18.06) = -1.04, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.61)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(18.55) = -2.24, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-3.00 to -0.10)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(18.82) = 1.00, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.34)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(17.92) = -0.83, p = 0.831, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.49 to 1.94)

Plot

Clinical significance